Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Why Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle Is Wrong! Proposed Device: Quantum-Limited Electron Imaging Camera (QLEIC-2050)

Sardar Dilbag Singh Khalsa

Published Feb 10, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The uncertainty principle is commonly regarded as a fundamental limitation ofquantum mechanics, often attributed directly to Heisenberg’s 1927 analysis.In this work, we revisit the original formulation of the principle and carefullydistinguish Heisenberg’s measurement–disturbance argument from the latermathematical uncertainty relations derived by Kennard, Robertson, andSchrödinger. We show that the standard variance-based formulation relies onthe prior introduction of fluctuation operators and ensemble averages, therebypresupposing statistical indeterminacy rather than deriving it from firstprinciples. From a physical perspective, Heisenberg’s argument is shown toreflect constraints imposed by invasive measurement techniques rather than auniversal prohibition on simultaneous knowledge of conjugate variables.Motivated by this distinction, we propose a conjecture that, in the absence ofmeasurement-induced energy transfer, the simultaneous determination ofposition and momentum may, in principle, be achievable. Our analysis suggeststhat quantum uncertainty, as traditionally formulated, encodes limitations ofcurrent observational methods rather than an intrinsic property of nature. \section{Heisenberg’s original observation and formulation (1927)} In his seminal 1927 paper \emph{Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik} \cite{Heisenberg1927}, Werner Heisenberg sought to clarify the physical meaning of quantum mechanics rather than to establish a rigorous mathematical theorem. His analysis was based on thought experiments concerning the act of measurement, most notably the $\gamma$-ray microscope. Heisenberg argued that any attempt to localize a particle within a spatial region $\Delta x$ requires radiation of wavelength comparable to $\Delta x$, which inevitably transfers an uncontrollable momentum $\Delta p$ to the particle. As a consequence of this measurement-induced disturbance, he proposed that the product of the inaccuracies in position and momentum measurements satisfies a relation of the order\begin{equation}\Delta x\, \Delta p \sim h .\end{equation}Here, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$ denote operational measurement imprecisions arising from the interaction between the measuring apparatus and the system, rather than statistical variances of quantum observables. Heisenberg did not introduce operators, Hilbert space, or probability distributions, nor did he provide a formal inequality with a precise lower bound. The argument was explicitly heuristic and qualitative, emphasizing limitations imposed by the measurement process itself. Consequently, the original uncertainty principle was formulated as a statement about measurement disturbance and experimental resolution, not as a universal mathematical constraint on quantum states. \section{Standard mathematical proof of the position--momentum uncertainty relation} \subsection{Setup and definitions} Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and let $|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$ be anormalized state, $\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1$. Let $A$ and $B$ beself-adjoint operators (observables) on a common dense domain containing$|\psi\rangle$, such that all expressions below are well-defined. Define expectation values\cite{Kennard1927,Robertson1929,Schrodinger1930,Ballentine1998,Sakurai1994}\begin{equation}\langle A \rangle := \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle,\qquad\langle B \rangle := \langle \psi | B | \psi \rangle .\end{equation}Define the fluctuation (centered) operators\begin{equation}\Delta A := A - \langle A \rangle, \qquad \Delta B := B - \langle B \rangle .\end{equation}The variances are\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 := \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta A)^2 | \psi \rangle,\qquad\sigma_B^2 := \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta B)^2 | \psi \rangle.\end{equation} \subsection{Key inequality: Cauchy--Schwarz in Hilbert space} Define vectors\begin{equation}|\phi\rangle := \Delta A |\psi\rangle, \qquad |\chi\rangle := \Delta B |\psi\rangle .\end{equation}By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality,\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle \, \langle \chi|\chi\rangle \ge |\langle \phi|\chi\rangle|^2 .\end{equation}Compute each factor:\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^\dagger (\Delta A) |\psi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^2 |\psi\rangle= \sigma_A^2,\end{equation}and similarly $\langle \chi|\chi\rangle = \sigma_B^2$. Therefore\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge \left| \langle \psi| \Delta A \Delta B |\psi\rangle \right|^2= |\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2 .\label{eq:cs_step}\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson--Schr\"odinger decomposition} Decompose $\Delta A \Delta B$ into commutator and anticommutator parts:\begin{equation}\Delta A \Delta B=\frac{1}{2}\bigl[\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr]+\frac{1}{2}\bigl\{\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr\},\end{equation}where $[X,Y]=XY-YX$ and $\{X,Y\}=XY+YX$. Taking expectation values gives\begin{equation}\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle .\label{eq:decomp_exp}\end{equation} Now note the following facts for self-adjoint $A,B$:\begin{itemize}\item The operator $[\Delta A,\Delta B]$ is anti-self-adjoint, hence$\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle$ is purely imaginary.\item The operator $\{\Delta A,\Delta B\}$ is self-adjoint, hence$\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle$ is real.\end{itemize}Therefore the two terms in \eqref{eq:decomp_exp} are orthogonal in the complex plane(real vs.\ imaginary), and we may write\begin{equation}|\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2 .\label{eq:RS_identity}\end{equation} Substituting \eqref{eq:RS_identity} into \eqref{eq:cs_step} yields theSchr\"odinger uncertainty relation:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\label{eq:schrodinger}\end{equation} Since constants commute with everything,\begin{equation}[\Delta A,\Delta B] = [A-\langle A\rangle,\; B-\langle B\rangle] = [A,B].\end{equation}Hence \eqref{eq:schrodinger} can be written as\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle\right)^2}.\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson inequality (weaker but widely quoted)} Dropping the nonnegative anticommutator term gives Robertson's inequality:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A \sigma_B \ge \frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|}.\label{eq:robertson}\end{equation} \subsection{Specialization to position and momentum} Take $A=x$ and $B=p$ (one spatial dimension), with canonical commutation relation\begin{equation}[x,p] = i\hbar.\end{equation}Therefore,\begin{equation}|\langle [x,p]\rangle|= |\langle i\hbar \rangle|= \hbar,\end{equation}and \eqref{eq:robertson} yields the standard position--momentum uncertainty relation\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}.}\end{equation} \subsection{Condition for equality (minimum-uncertainty states)} Equality in Cauchy--Schwarz holds iff the vectors are linearly dependent:\begin{equation}\Delta A|\psi\rangle = \lambda \, \Delta B|\psi\rangle\quad \text{for some complex } \lambda.\end{equation}For $A=x$ and $B=p$, this condition leads (in the $x$-representation) to afirst-order differential equation whose normalized solutions are Gaussianwave packets. Hence Gaussian states saturate $\sigma_x \sigma_p = \hbar/2$. \subsection{Definition of fluctuation operators and their role in the uncertainty relation} In the mathematical formulation of quantum uncertainty developed after Heisenberg’s original 1927 heuristic proposal, the quantities entering the uncertainty relation were redefined in statistical terms. In particular, in his 1929 paper, Robertson introduced the operators. \noindent\textbf{Critical observation.}The introduction of the fluctuation operators \begin{center}\fcolorbox{red}{white}{$\Delta A = A - \langle A \rangle,\qquad\Delta B = B - \langle B \rangle$}\end{center} \textbf{constitutes a nontrivial mathematicalassumption rather than a derived physical necessity. In the Robertson--Schrödinger formalism, the uncertainty of observables is defined \emph{a priori} in terms ofstatistical deviations from expectation values, thereby presupposing the verynotion of indeterminacy that the uncertainty principle is intended to justify.In other words, the operators $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$ encode uncertainty byconstruction, since their variances measure ensemble spread relative to a mean.The subsequent derivation of a lower bound on $\sigma_A \sigma_B$ thereforeestablishes a constraint on these predefined statistical quantities, rather than demonstrating that physical observables must be uncertain from first principles.Consequently, the uncertainty relation obtained in this manner is logicallyconditional upon the initial choice of variance-based definitions and does not,by itself, prove the existence of intrinsic measurement indeterminacy or disturbance in individual quantum events.} \textit{They actully assumed and defined the spread and uncertainity initial in both the quantities and proved the uncertainity principle.} where $A$ and $B$ are self-adjoint operators representing observables and$\langle A \rangle = \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle$ denotes the expectationvalue in a normalized quantum state $|\psi\rangle$ \cite{Robertson1929}.These operators describe deviations of observables from their mean valuesand are introduced in direct analogy with classical statistical fluctuations.The corresponding variances,$\sigma_A^2 = \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle$ and$\sigma_B^2 = \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle$,measure the statistical spread of measurement outcomes over an ensembleof identically prepared systems

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.18570621

Related papers

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

S. Rajasekar, R. Velusamy

One of the most striking deviations of quantum mechanics from classical mechanics is that any measurement of a microscopic system involves the interaction with the measuring instruments. The interaction cannot be neglected and in fact leads to uncontrollable disturbance on the system. In 1927, Werner Karl Heisenberg in his celebrated paper established the quantitative expression for unavoidable momentum disturbance caused by any position measurement. The crucial word here is simultaneously. The uncertainty relation gives the lower bound on the product of the uncertainties of two pairs of variables. But it says nothing about the accuracy with which individual observables can be measured. The physical meaning of energy-time uncertainty is different from that of x-px uncertainty. Position and momentum are observables to which Hermitian operators are assigned and which are measured at a particular time. An important implication of the uncertainty principle is that quantum systems do follow classical trajectories which conflict with our everyday experience.

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 29, 2022•1 citation

A Universal Formulation of Uncertainty Relation for Error-Disturbance and Local Representability of Quantum Observables

Jaeha Lee

A universal formulation of the quantum uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, quantum measurement, and its inevitable observer effect is presented with additional focus on the representability of quantum observables over a given state. The operational tangibility of the framework assures that the resultant general relations admit natural operational interpretations and characterisations, and thereby perhaps most importantly, their experimental verifiability. In view of the universal formulation, Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle, most typically exemplified in his famous gamma-ray microscope Gedankenexperiment, is revisited; it is reformulated and restated as a refined no-go theorem, albeit perhaps in a weaker form than was originally intended. The relations entail, in essence as corollaries to their special cases, several previously known relations, including most notably the standard Kennard-Robertson relation, the Arthurs-Kelly-Goodman relations for joint measurement as well as the Ozawa and the Watanabe-Sagawa-Ueda relations for error and error-disturbance.

arXiv:2204.11814•Apr 25, 2022•0 citations

Heisenberg's Original Derivation of the Uncertainty Principle and its Universally Valid Reformulations

Masanao Ozawa

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was originally posed for the limit of the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables as stating that canonically conjugate observables can be measured simultaneously only with the constraint that the product of their mean errors should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. However, Heisenberg with the subsequent completion by Kennard has long been credited only with a constraint for state preparation represented by the product of the standard deviations. Here, we show that Heisenberg actually proved the constraint for the accuracy of simultaneous measurement but assuming an obsolete postulate for quantum mechanics. This assumption, known as the repeatability hypothesis, formulated explicitly by von Neumann and Schrödinger, was broadly accepted until the 1970s, but abandoned in the 1980s, when completely general quantum measurement theory was established. We also survey the author's recent proposal for a universally valid reformulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle under the most general assumption on quantum measurement.

arXiv:1507.02010•Current Science•Dec 1, 2015•33 citations

A Universal Formulation of Uncertainty Relation for Error and Disturbance

Jaeha Lee, Izumi Tsutsui

We present a universal formulation of uncertainty relation valid for any conceivable quantum measurement and the resultant observation (observer) effect of statistical nature. Owing to its simplicity and operational tangibility, our general relation is also experimentally verifiable. Our relation violates the traditional na{ï}ve bound $\hbar/2$ for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our error-disturbance relation admits a parallel formulation to our relation for errors, which also embraces the standard Kennard--Robertson (Schr{ö}dinger) relation as a special case; this attains a unified picture of the three orthodox realms of uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, measurement, and observation effect within a single framework.

arXiv:2004.06099•Apr 13, 2020•0 citations

Quantum measurement theory and the uncertainty principle

Masanao Ozawa

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was originally posed for the limit of the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables as stating that canonically conjugate observables can be measured simultaneously only with the constraint that the product of their mean errors should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. However, Heisenberg with the subsequent completion by Kennard has long been credited only with a constraint for state preparation represented by the product of the standard deviations. Here, we show that Heisenberg actually proved the constraint for the accuracy of simultaneous measurement but assuming an obsolete postulate for quantum mechanics. This assumption, known as the repeatability hypothesis, formulated explicitly by von Neumann and Schrodinger, was broadly accepted until the 1970s, but abandoned in the 1980s, when completely general quantum measurement theory was established. We also survey the author's recent proposal for a universally valid reformulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle under the most general assumption on quantum measurement.

•Jul 8, 2015•0 citations

Another look through Heisenberg’s microscope

S. P. Boughn, Marcel Reginatto

Abstract Heisenberg introduced his famous uncertainty relations in a seminal 1927 paper entitled The Physical Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics . He motivated his arguments with a gedanken experiment, a gamma ray microscope to measure the position of a particle. A primary result was that, due to the quantum nature of light, there is an inherent uncertainty in the determinations of the particle’s position and momentum dictated by an indeterminacy relation, δ q δ p ∼ h . Heisenberg offered this demonstration as ‘a direct physical interpretation of the [quantum mechanical] equation pq − qp = − i ℏ ’ but considered the indeterminacy relation to be much more than this. He also argued that it implies limitations on the very meanings of position and momentum and emphasised that these limitations are the source of the statistical character of quantum mechanics. In addition, Heisenberg hoped but was unable to demonstrate that the laws of quantum mechanics could be derived directly from the uncertainty relation. In this paper, we revisit Heisenberg’s microscope and argue that the Schrödinger equation for a free particle does indeed follow from the indeterminacy relation together with reasonable statistical assumptions.

arXiv:1712.08579•European Journal of Physics•Dec 20, 2017•8 citations
The uncertainty principle is commonly regarded as a fundamental limitation ofquantum mechanics, often attributed directly to Heisenberg’s 1927 analysis.In this work, we revisit the original formulation of the principle and carefullydistinguish Heisenberg’s measurement–disturbance argument from the latermathematical uncertainty relations derived by Kennard, Robertson, andSchrödinger. We show that the standard variance-based formulation relies onthe prior introduction of fluctuation operators and ensemble averages, therebypresupposing statistical indeterminacy rather than deriving it from firstprinciples. From a physical perspective, Heisenberg’s argument is shown toreflect constraints imposed by invasive measurement techniques rather than auniversal prohibition on simultaneous knowledge of conjugate variables.Motivated by this distinction, we propose a conjecture that, in the absence ofmeasurement-induced energy transfer, the simultaneous determination ofposition and momentum may, in principle, be achievable. Our analysis suggeststhat quantum uncertainty, as traditionally formulated, encodes limitations ofcurrent observational methods rather than an intrinsic property of nature. \section{Heisenberg’s original observation and formulation (1927)} In his seminal 1927 paper \emph{Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik} \cite{Heisenberg1927}, Werner Heisenberg sought to clarify the physical meaning of quantum mechanics rather than to establish a rigorous mathematical theorem. His analysis was based on thought experiments concerning the act of measurement, most notably the γ\gammaγ-ray microscope. Heisenberg argued that any attempt to localize a particle within a spatial region Δx\Delta xΔx requires radiation of wavelength comparable to Δx\Delta xΔx, which inevitably transfers an uncontrollable momentum Δp\Delta pΔp to the particle. As a consequence of this measurement-induced disturbance, he proposed that the product of the inaccuracies in position and momentum measurements satisfies a relation of the order\begin{equation}\Delta x, \Delta p \sim h .\end{equation}Here, Δx\Delta xΔx and Δp\Delta pΔp denote operational measurement imprecisions arising from the interaction between the measuring apparatus and the system, rather than statistical variances of quantum observables. Heisenberg did not introduce operators, Hilbert space, or probability distributions, nor did he provide a formal inequality with a precise lower bound. The argument was explicitly heuristic and qualitative, emphasizing limitations imposed by the measurement process itself. Consequently, the original uncertainty principle was formulated as a statement about measurement disturbance and experimental resolution, not as a universal mathematical constraint on quantum states. \section{Standard mathematical proof of the position--momentum uncertainty relation} \subsection{Setup and definitions} Let H\mathcal{H}H be a Hilbert space and let ∣ψ⟩∈H|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}∣ψ⟩∈H be anormalized state, ⟨ψ∣ψ⟩=1\langle \psi | \psi \rangle = 1⟨ψ∣ψ⟩=1. Let AAA and BBB beself-adjoint operators (observables) on a common dense domain containing∣ψ⟩|\psi\rangle∣ψ⟩, such that all expressions below are well-defined. Define expectation values\cite{Kennard1927,Robertson1929,Schrodinger1930,Ballentine1998,Sakurai1994}\begin{equation}\langle A \rangle := \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle,\qquad\langle B \rangle := \langle \psi | B | \psi \rangle .\end{equation}Define the fluctuation (centered) operators\begin{equation}\Delta A := A - \langle A \rangle, \qquad \Delta B := B - \langle B \rangle .\end{equation}The variances are\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 := \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta A)^2 | \psi \rangle,\qquad\sigma_B^2 := \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangle = \langle \psi | (\Delta B)^2 | \psi \rangle.\end{equation} \subsection{Key inequality: Cauchy--Schwarz in Hilbert space} Define vectors\begin{equation}|\phi\rangle := \Delta A |\psi\rangle, \qquad |\chi\rangle := \Delta B |\psi\rangle .\end{equation}By the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality,\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle , \langle \chi|\chi\rangle \ge |\langle \phi|\chi\rangle|^2 .\end{equation}Compute each factor:\begin{equation}\langle \phi|\phi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^\dagger (\Delta A) |\psi\rangle= \langle \psi| (\Delta A)^2 |\psi\rangle= \sigma_A^2,\end{equation}and similarly ⟨χ∣χ⟩=σB2\langle \chi|\chi\rangle = \sigma_B^2⟨χ∣χ⟩=σB2​. Therefore\begin{equation}\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge \left| \langle \psi| \Delta A \Delta B |\psi\rangle \right|^2= |\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2 .\label{eq:cs_step}\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson--Schr"odinger decomposition} Decompose ΔAΔB\Delta A \Delta BΔAΔB into commutator and anticommutator parts:\begin{equation}\Delta A \Delta B=\frac{1}{2}\bigl[\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr]+\frac{1}{2}\bigl{\Delta A,\Delta B\bigr},\end{equation}where [X,Y]=XY−YX[X,Y]=XY-YX[X,Y]=XY−YX and {X,Y}=XY+YX\{X,Y\}=XY+YX{X,Y}=XY+YX. Taking expectation values gives\begin{equation}\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle {\Delta A,\Delta B}\rangle .\label{eq:decomp_exp}\end{equation} Now note the following facts for self-adjoint A,BA,BA,B:\begin{itemize}\item The operator [ΔA,ΔB][\Delta A,\Delta B][ΔA,ΔB] is anti-self-adjoint, hence⟨[ΔA,ΔB]⟩\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle⟨[ΔA,ΔB]⟩ is purely imaginary.\item The operator {ΔA,ΔB}\{\Delta A,\Delta B\}{ΔA,ΔB} is self-adjoint, hence⟨{ΔA,ΔB}⟩\langle \{\Delta A,\Delta B\}\rangle⟨{ΔA,ΔB}⟩ is real.\end{itemize}Therefore the two terms in \eqref{eq:decomp_exp} are orthogonal in the complex plane(real vs.\ imaginary), and we may write\begin{equation}|\langle \Delta A \Delta B \rangle|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle {\Delta A,\Delta B}\rangle\right)^2 .\label{eq:RS_identity}\end{equation} Substituting \eqref{eq:RS_identity} into \eqref{eq:cs_step} yields theSchr"odinger uncertainty relation:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [\Delta A,\Delta B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle {\Delta A,\Delta B}\rangle\right)^2}.\label{eq:schrodinger}\end{equation} Since constants commute with everything,\begin{equation}[\Delta A,\Delta B] = [A-\langle A\rangle,; B-\langle B\rangle] = [A,B].\end{equation}Hence \eqref{eq:schrodinger} can be written as\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A^2 \sigma_B^2 \ge\left(\frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle {\Delta A,\Delta B}\rangle\right)^2}.\end{equation} \subsection{Robertson inequality (weaker but widely quoted)} Dropping the nonnegative anticommutator term gives Robertson's inequality:\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_A \sigma_B \ge \frac{1}{2}|\langle [A,B]\rangle|}.\label{eq:robertson}\end{equation} \subsection{Specialization to position and momentum} Take A=xA=xA=x and B=pB=pB=p (one spatial dimension), with canonical commutation relation\begin{equation}[x,p] = i\hbar.\end{equation}Therefore,\begin{equation}|\langle [x,p]\rangle|= |\langle i\hbar \rangle|= \hbar,\end{equation}and \eqref{eq:robertson} yields the standard position--momentum uncertainty relation\begin{equation}\boxed{\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}.}\end{equation} \subsection{Condition for equality (minimum-uncertainty states)} Equality in Cauchy--Schwarz holds iff the vectors are linearly dependent:\begin{equation}\Delta A|\psi\rangle = \lambda , \Delta B|\psi\rangle\quad \text{for some complex } \lambda.\end{equation}For A=xA=xA=x and B=pB=pB=p, this condition leads (in the xxx-representation) to afirst-order differential equation whose normalized solutions are Gaussianwave packets. Hence Gaussian states saturate σxσp=ℏ/2\sigma_x \sigma_p = \hbar/2σx​σp​=ℏ/2. \subsection{Definition of fluctuation operators and their role in the uncertainty relation} In the mathematical formulation of quantum uncertainty developed after Heisenberg’s original 1927 heuristic proposal, the quantities entering the uncertainty relation were redefined in statistical terms. In particular, in his 1929 paper, Robertson introduced the operators. \noindent\textbf{Critical observation.}The introduction of the fluctuation operators \begin{center}\fcolorbox{red}{white}{ΔA=A−⟨A⟩,ΔB=B−⟨B⟩\Delta A = A - \langle A \rangle,\qquad\Delta B = B - \langle B \rangleΔA=A−⟨A⟩,ΔB=B−⟨B⟩}\end{center} \textbf{constitutes a nontrivial mathematicalassumption rather than a derived physical necessity. In the Robertson--Schrödinger formalism, the uncertainty of observables is defined \emph{a priori} in terms ofstatistical deviations from expectation values, thereby presupposing the verynotion of indeterminacy that the uncertainty principle is intended to justify.In other words, the operators ΔA\Delta AΔA and ΔB\Delta BΔB encode uncertainty byconstruction, since their variances measure ensemble spread relative to a mean.The subsequent derivation of a lower bound on σAσB\sigma_A \sigma_BσA​σB​ thereforeestablishes a constraint on these predefined statistical quantities, rather than demonstrating that physical observables must be uncertain from first principles.Consequently, the uncertainty relation obtained in this manner is logicallyconditional upon the initial choice of variance-based definitions and does not,by itself, prove the existence of intrinsic measurement indeterminacy or disturbance in individual quantum events.} \textit{They actully assumed and defined the spread and uncertainity initial in both the quantities and proved the uncertainity principle.} where AAA and BBB are self-adjoint operators representing observables and⟨A⟩=⟨ψ∣A∣ψ⟩\langle A \rangle = \langle \psi | A | \psi \rangle⟨A⟩=⟨ψ∣A∣ψ⟩ denotes the expectationvalue in a normalized quantum state ∣ψ⟩|\psi\rangle∣ψ⟩ \cite{Robertson1929}.These operators describe deviations of observables from their mean valuesand are introduced in direct analogy with classical statistical fluctuations.The corresponding variances,σA2=⟨(ΔA)2⟩\sigma_A^2 = \langle (\Delta A)^2 \rangleσA2​=⟨(ΔA)2⟩ andσB2=⟨(ΔB)2⟩\sigma_B^2 = \langle (\Delta B)^2 \rangleσB2​=⟨(ΔB)2⟩,measure the statistical spread of measurement outcomes over an ensembleof identically prepared systems
One of the most striking deviations of quantum mechanics from classical mechanics is that any measurement of a microscopic system involves the interaction with the measuring instruments. The interaction cannot be neglected and in fact leads to uncontrollable disturbance on the system. In 1927, Werner Karl Heisenberg in his celebrated paper established the quantitative expression for unavoidable momentum disturbance caused by any position measurement. The crucial word here is simultaneously. The uncertainty relation gives the lower bound on the product of the uncertainties of two pairs of variables. But it says nothing about the accuracy with which individual observables can be measured. The physical meaning of energy-time uncertainty is different from that of x-px uncertainty. Position and momentum are observables to which Hermitian operators are assigned and which are measured at a particular time. An important implication of the uncertainty principle is that quantum systems do follow classical trajectories which conflict with our everyday experience.
A universal formulation of the quantum uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, quantum measurement, and its inevitable observer effect is presented with additional focus on the representability of quantum observables over a given state. The operational tangibility of the framework assures that the resultant general relations admit natural operational interpretations and characterisations, and thereby perhaps most importantly, their experimental verifiability. In view of the universal formulation, Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle, most typically exemplified in his famous gamma-ray microscope Gedankenexperiment, is revisited; it is reformulated and restated as a refined no-go theorem, albeit perhaps in a weaker form than was originally intended. The relations entail, in essence as corollaries to their special cases, several previously known relations, including most notably the standard Kennard-Robertson relation, the Arthurs-Kelly-Goodman relations for joint measurement as well as the Ozawa and the Watanabe-Sagawa-Ueda relations for error and error-disturbance.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was originally posed for the limit of the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables as stating that canonically conjugate observables can be measured simultaneously only with the constraint that the product of their mean errors should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. However, Heisenberg with the subsequent completion by Kennard has long been credited only with a constraint for state preparation represented by the product of the standard deviations. Here, we show that Heisenberg actually proved the constraint for the accuracy of simultaneous measurement but assuming an obsolete postulate for quantum mechanics. This assumption, known as the repeatability hypothesis, formulated explicitly by von Neumann and Schrödinger, was broadly accepted until the 1970s, but abandoned in the 1980s, when completely general quantum measurement theory was established. We also survey the author's recent proposal for a universally valid reformulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle under the most general assumption on quantum measurement.
We present a universal formulation of uncertainty relation valid for any conceivable quantum measurement and the resultant observation (observer) effect of statistical nature. Owing to its simplicity and operational tangibility, our general relation is also experimentally verifiable. Our relation violates the traditional na{ï}ve bound ℏ/2\hbar/2ℏ/2 for the position-momentum measurement while respecting Heisenberg's original philosophy of the uncertainty principle. Our error-disturbance relation admits a parallel formulation to our relation for errors, which also embraces the standard Kennard--Robertson (Schr{ö}dinger) relation as a special case; this attains a unified picture of the three orthodox realms of uncertainty regarding quantum indeterminacy, measurement, and observation effect within a single framework.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was originally posed for the limit of the accuracy of simultaneous measurement of non-commuting observables as stating that canonically conjugate observables can be measured simultaneously only with the constraint that the product of their mean errors should be no less than a limit set by Planck's constant. However, Heisenberg with the subsequent completion by Kennard has long been credited only with a constraint for state preparation represented by the product of the standard deviations. Here, we show that Heisenberg actually proved the constraint for the accuracy of simultaneous measurement but assuming an obsolete postulate for quantum mechanics. This assumption, known as the repeatability hypothesis, formulated explicitly by von Neumann and Schrodinger, was broadly accepted until the 1970s, but abandoned in the 1980s, when completely general quantum measurement theory was established. We also survey the author's recent proposal for a universally valid reformulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle under the most general assumption on quantum measurement.
Abstract Heisenberg introduced his famous uncertainty relations in a seminal 1927 paper entitled The Physical Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics . He motivated his arguments with a gedanken experiment, a gamma ray microscope to measure the position of a particle. A primary result was that, due to the quantum nature of light, there is an inherent uncertainty in the determinations of the particle’s position and momentum dictated by an indeterminacy relation, δ q δ p ∼ h . Heisenberg offered this demonstration as ‘a direct physical interpretation of the [quantum mechanical] equation pq − qp = − i ℏ ’ but considered the indeterminacy relation to be much more than this. He also argued that it implies limitations on the very meanings of position and momentum and emphasised that these limitations are the source of the statistical character of quantum mechanics. In addition, Heisenberg hoped but was unable to demonstrate that the laws of quantum mechanics could be derived directly from the uncertainty relation. In this paper, we revisit Heisenberg’s microscope and argue that the Schrödinger equation for a free particle does indeed follow from the indeterminacy relation together with reasonable statistical assumptions.